Read Microsoft PowerPoint - GOM Hydrate JIP DOE Sept 03.ppt text version

Characterizing Natural Gas Hydrates in the Deep Water Gulf of Mexico

Houston

GOM Hydrate JIP Project Plan DOE Cost Share ~ 80%

Phase III- Collect more data or measure predicted performance with wells in the GOM. Project definition, funding, and timeline dependent on the outcomes of Phase I and II.

$2- 10 MM

Cost To Achieve

Phase II- Collect cores and other data. Determine the properties of hydrate containing sediments. Test models for accuracy.

$10 MM

$3MM

Phase I- Gather information necessary to drill and core hydrates in the GOM. Build basic models for well bore stability and geophysics of hydrate sediments. Work with DOE to develop needs Obtain DOE funding

Activity

Determine Conduct additional Try Execute drilling further work Production drilling and coring

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Project Organization

DOE Project Manager Joe Renk JIP Executive Board ChevronTexaco, Emrys Jones, Chairman Schlumberger, Stephen Holditch Halliburton, Lewis Norman ConocoPhillips, Ravi Aurora TotalFinaElf, Pierre Montaud MMS, Jesse Hunt JNOC, Dr. Yoshihiro Tsuji Reliance India Ltd., Vidyadhar Kamath

JIP Project Manager Emrys Jones ChevronTexaco EPTC

Drilling and Coring Ben Bloys ChevronTexaco EPTC

Technical Teams and Team Leaders Sea Floor Stability Hydrate Characterization Mike Smith Peter Eick MMS ConocoPhillips

Technology Transfer Steve Holditch Schlumberger

Phase I Activities and Linkages Lab

Georgia Tech JNOC USGS

Modeling

WesternGeco Schlumberger Georgia Tech USGS NRL

Remote Data Cruise Planning

JOI/TA&M SIO JIP companies Fugro WesternGeco Georgia Tech USGS NRL MMRI

Keathely Canyon Has An Indication of a BSR

Atwater Valley Has Several Mounds and Vents

Keathley Canyon 195 Reprocessing Xline 40250 Reprocessing Original

Properties Being Measured by Georgia Tech

Longitudinal and lateral (lower precision) stress-strain Elastic-Plastic Transition Tensile strengths (indirect from Mohr-Coulomb intercept) Shear strength Compressive strength Failure/stability envelopes (Mohr-Coulomb) Bulk moduli static (poor resolution) = Hydrostatic compaction coefficient Triaxial compaction coefficient (drained - from longitudinal and lateral stress-strain) Young's modulus static (strain level affects) Volume-Pressure compaction curves (zero lateral strain) = Uniaxial volume compaction Thermal Conductivity Thermal Diffusivity (low probability) Heat Capacity (indirect; low probability) Volume change during phase transformation P-wave velocities - Constrained Modulus M - Longitudinal mechanial impedance S-wave velocities - Shear modulus G - Mechanical Shear impedance Bulk moduli dynamic (indirect through Vs and Vp) Electrical Resistivity Real permittivity 200 MHz - 1.3 GHz (oedometer at low confinement) Hydrate distribution (optical/visual--destructive of sample) Pore filling vs. grain boundaries

Thermal Acoustic

Mechanical

Georgia Tech is Conducting a Few Experiments

Grain size concentration Confining pressure 100 0 0.01 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.01 10 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.01 20 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.01 0 0.50 1.00 2.00 45 10 0.01 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.01 20 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.01 0 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.01 1 10 0.50 1.00 2.00 20 0.01 0.50 1.00 2.00 18 (CaCO3) 0.01 (illite) 0 0.01 1.00 20 0.01 0 1.00 20 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.01 GOM sed 0 0.01 20 1.00 T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in 1.00 0.01 T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

per dis pore

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O C S in

T= TRIAXIAL DEVICE O = OEDOMETER C = CONSOLIDATION TEST (OEDOMETER AT LOW CONFINEMENT)

S=selected in = inferred

Thermal acoustic

Mechanical

Oedometer

Triaxial cell

Additional Georgia Tech Experiments

· Using typical GOM sediments Georgia Tech will.

­ Determine the effect of depressurization on the acoustic properties of a core. ­ Determine the effect of an estimated temperature cycle on the acoustic properties of a core.

· These experiments should allow us to estimate the error introduced in obtaining a conventional core as compared to a pressure and temperature compensated core.

Fugro Explorer

JOI/TA&M is developing the drilling and core handling guidelines

USGS Activites Related to the Gulf of Mexico Gas Hydrate JIP

Giant Piston Coring ­ to provide geochemical and geochemical information in 0-40 m subbottom depths.

Mound F

High-Resolution MCS ­ to provide high-resolution information about mounds, BSRs, and geology

Vs

Voltage

Vp Time

Lab Studies ­ to provide physical properties of hydrate-sediment mixes at silt sizes (methane and thf hydrate)

MMRI Long Term Monitoring Work

Linkages Summary

· USGS- May 1-14, 2003 cruise. Collect high resolution seismic data over KC195 and AT14. · NRL, Georgia Tech, and WHOI - August 5-19, 2003 cruise, deep tow and heat flow measurements. · University of Mississippi- May 16-21 will conducted high resolution multichannel 500 m bsl, 500 m bml, seismic over AT14. · University of Mississippi- Arranging to let them use one of our wells to monitor sea bed long term with geophones.

Drilling & Coring Plans for Phase II

· Leg 1 of Drilling and Coring will begin Q2 2004

­ Maybe total 16 holes drilled at 8 sites, likely riserless ­ twin holes at each site ­ one each for logging and coring ­ final # of holes is rig cost-budget dependent

· Leg 2 of Drilling and Coring may begin Q2 2005

­ will follow thorough analysis of Leg1 data ­ additional 10-12 holes at previous or new locations depending on information required ­ exploring opportunities to install long-term monitoring equipment in the holes

That's All I have

Information

Microsoft PowerPoint - GOM Hydrate JIP DOE Sept 03.ppt

16 pages

Find more like this

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

1210488